Supreme Court lets states use the revamped SAVE voter database

SAVE was created to help agencies verify citizenship or immigration status for public benefits.

The Trump administration expanded SAVE so officials can search voter rolls in bulk using Social Security and citizenship records.

A 2025 executive order directed agencies to let election officials verify the citizenship of people registering or already on the rolls.

The League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and individual voters sued over the expanded system.

In June 2026, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blocked the revamped SAVE system.

Sooknanan wrote that the government knowingly trampled citizens' privacy rights in a way that threatens the right to vote.

The D.C. Circuit left Sooknanan's order in place before the administration went to the Supreme Court.

On Sept. 25, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the lower-court order and let the administration use the revamped SAVE system again.

The court's three liberal justices dissented.

The majority said a 1996 law lets Homeland Security obtain citizenship and immigration information from other federal agencies.

The majority said the federal government must respond to state and local requests to verify voters' citizenship.

The majority said the lower-court order blocks the program the government believes is best suited to that task.

The National Voter Registration Act bars systematic voter-roll removals in the 90 days before a federal election, limiting the ruling's effect on the Nov. 3 midterms.

Individual citizenship checks can still be made during that pre-election period.

States' use of SAVE is voluntary.

SAVE lets officials check the citizenship or eligibility of people on voter rolls.

Critics and local officials say the expanded system has already flagged U.S. citizens as noncitizens.

Travis County, Texas, reviewed about 97 to 100 voters SAVE flagged as noncitizens and found at least 10 percent, and possibly about 21 percent, were citizens.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the harm of burdening even a few lawful voters outweighs blocking an action the government likely lacks authority to take.

The plaintiffs called the ruling profoundly disappointing.

The plaintiffs said the ruling puts millions of Americans at risk from an unreliable database before the midterms.

The plaintiffs said the case is not over and they will try to preserve the district-court ruling.

Critics question whether SAVE citizenship data is reliable enough for voter-roll checks.

The administration argues the system is lawful and needed to stop noncitizens from voting.

DHS general counsel James Percival said the department had to seek emergency Supreme Court relief to use government data against noncitizen voting.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer called Sooknanan's order indefensible and a threat to upcoming elections.

Sauer wrote that SAVE does not itself disqualify voters and only tells states whether the government can confirm citizenship.

The majority said the challengers' claims are likely to fail and that the court is likely to reverse the district court.

At least 67 million voter registrations have been scanned through the expanded program.

The administration said it kept using Social Security data in some cases while the lower-court block was in place.

A federal whistleblower said an August DHS investigation of noncitizen voters was rushed, error-filled, and possibly illegal under state law.

DHS said that August investigation was conducted diligently and professionally.

Travis County urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, while Texas filed a brief defending the database.

DHS has acknowledged that SAVE data is not perfect.

Earlier in September the Supreme Court stopped a Trump administration effort to restrict mail ballots before the midterms.

Courts have blocked other Trump election changes in part because the Constitution assigns election rules to the states and Congress, not the president.

State audits and research cited by outlets find proven noncitizen voting is rare next to the size of the voter rolls.

Judges and the challengers said U.S. citizens were removed from voter rolls after inaccurate SAVE checks.

The Nov. 3, 2026, general election was less than 40 days away when the court ruled.

The majority said the government would suffer irreparable harm if it could not use the system to help run the midterms.

Sauer argued the challengers lack standing and that the district judge lacked power to enter the order.

The plaintiffs said they would do everything in their power to keep the district-court decision in place.